no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Quick Hits

February 7th, 2008

Some people find my blog looking for “arguments against the flat tax.” My argument against the flat tax starts with the same basic premise that I use to argue against all taxes. Taxation is simply theft in disguise.

The extortion embodied in the nature of taxation is not lessened if the burden is shifted entirely to consumption goods, like a flat tax would have. If anything, the flat tax exposes taxation as a “permission to live” payment, since you literally can’t buy anything without paying an additional sum to the State.

+++

At Democracy Sucks, Stephan tells us why governments can’t be accepted as lawmakers.

It looks as though some people argue for the existence of a government to adjudicate between the people in their disputes. In reality, this is only part of what the government actually does. Not only does the government become the arbitrator and ultimate judge in matters between private individuals, it becomes the ultimate judge in disputes between itself and private individuals.

That’s one of the things I mentioned yesterday. Ayn Rand wrote an allegory to a famous Chess player many years ago, where she compared socialism to a Chess match, where your opponent’s pawns could become Queens or something like that. A more low-brow comparison would be in the Adam Sandler movie, Big Daddy, where his adopted son plays a game of cards called “I win.” No matter what he’s dealt, he wins, because that’s the name of the game. I don’t think this applies only to socialism, but to all forms of government: no matter how well-intentioned, an impartial arbitration is impossible if your opponent is the one who makes and interprets the rules.

+++

Just like the proverbial broken clock, every once in a while those clowns in the legislature get one right, but that shouldn’t be taken as an indication of benevolence, intelligence, or anything for that matter. For posterity’s sake, they have to at least present a semblance of justice. I think it is your duty to obey laws which are just, not because they decreed by government, but because they are just. One is likewise obligated to permit the disobedience of unjust laws, not merely because they are the product of illegitimate government, but because they are unjust.

+++

If it weren’t for inflationary policy, the long-term interest rates would be much lower than they are. Based on certain assumptions about the natural rate of interest, and the long-run annualized growth trends, we might see long-term debt obligations like mortgages at something like 3.5% or probably even lower. This is because we could expect money held in storage to appreciate an average of about 2% annually in the long-run due to mild deflationary pressures and a legitimate currency. So you can gain 2% purchasing power simply by not spending your money today, and waiting for the future. That’s the opportunity cost below which nobody would lend. Of course in addition to the pure rate, there would be premiums for risk and default, but arbitrage in a free market would keep them modest.

If you have a 30-year mortgage for $200k, you could be saving something like $500/month, or you could get a 15-year note for roughly the same monthly payment, saving yourself oodles of interest payments.

I’m going to write more on this particular topic in the future.

Catching Up Around the ‘Sphere

February 5th, 2008

Where “no government at all” is not an option, I’d rather see government as transparent as possible, and a giant step in the right direction would be the elimination of the fraud by which the central banks permit their governments to continue spending, unhampered by budgetary constraints, by devaluing currency. One goldbug argument is that the elimination of debt-based money forces governments to finance things “the old fashioned way,” that is, through taxes. This much is true, but it’s certainly not a panacea, and should be viewed only as a pit-stop on the road to freedom.

I have to agree with Rad Geek’s assessment of this Lew Rockwell article: it’s certainly curious that Lew ends the argument in the manner that he does, as if to say, “the old fashioned way is just fine!” No, it’s fucking not! Don’t you remember Lew, that taxation is theft?

+++

Jim Davies has been writing a series of post-government essays from an anarchist perspective, over at Strike-the-Root.com. The most recent installment explains the virtues of a free-market justice system in greater detail and clarity than I could ever attempt.

Apprehension is efficient. That large but one-time problem having been solved, aggression is an uncommon event, and when it does take place, if the aggressor is at first unknown, any of several competing detective companies can be engaged to locate him or her. Since they get paid for results, they work with an efficiency that no government police department would have recognized–and they almost all belong to a trade association, which maintains a common database to help the work.

So whereas in the Government Era it was commonplace to find a large minority even of murders that were never solved, today already the apprehension rate is well over 95%.

There is ample reason to believe that apprehension would be efficient. I’ve heard it postulated that without private apprehension (i.e., bounty hunters) the current system would immediately collapse. Also, when you eliminate the monumental waste of resources devoted to fighting vices, not crimes, and incarcerating people for those vices, and destroying families, and so on and so forth, what we need in justice (as in every other sphere) is less government, not more.

+++

Francois Tremblay has written a primer, Eight ways you can personally help to smash the state. I’m more and more enamored with number 8, the practice of agorism or counter-economics. I will have a full-length post devoted to agorism in the near future.

+++

Marcel Votlucka is an anarchist, but he doesn’t hate the troops.

[H]ow can I hate the troops when they are victims of tatist oppression and callousness just as much as the people they are ordered to boss around and even kill?

“Love the sinner, hate the sin.”

Votlucka pretty much sums up my sentiments, exactly. Two years ago, contemplating the situations faced by several of my friends, I wrote:

Do I hate the choices that they have made? The sacrifices that they have paid? No.

Let me clarify: I hate the fact that in many instances, they no longer have a choice. I hate the fact that they’re 5,000 miles away, in a fucking desert somewhere. I hate the fact that they’ve been hoodwinked into believing they’re making us safer. I hate the fact that they’re dying for nothing, and if they’re not dying, they’re wasting years of their lives, rotting in some desert hell hole.

Although a number of “bad apples” are probably attracted to the power, many of the people in uniform honestly believe (however erroneously) that they are protecting people, they don’t want to be warlords and murderers, they want to fulfill some hero-myth that’s been drilled into their psyche since childhood. They’ve been told their entire lives that what they do is not only worthwhile, but necessary and righteous.

I can’t fault them for believing something that we’ve all more-or-less believed at some point in our lives. Some of us get over it sooner than others, some never do. Votlucka says,

It’s easy to condemn the government when it screws up, pursues a policy that hurts people, prosecutes a murderous war for oil or land or bragging rights. It’s easy to damn the paper-pushers and gun-fondlers who represent this entity. Too easy, in fact. That doesn’t strike the root of the problem with the State – the institution itself, and how it works on people’s minds. That’s the larger picture that we need to focus on.

Indeed.

Gold Clauses

January 30th, 2008

I love the idea of gold clauses (h/t: Cap’n Arbyte) but I don’t like them as envisioned by Reisman.

Do I agree with Reisman’s argument?

The parties entering into new contracts should be free to include whatever degree of gold clause protection that was mutually agreeable. What presently stops such contracts from being made are considerations both of their enforceability in the courts and their likely treatment for purposes of taxation.

To an extent, yes. But not entirely. Of course I believe that gold clauses should be entirely legitimate, and not subject to onerous capital gains taxations, as they are at present. But I cannot support the argument that creditors should be allowed to insert gold clauses into existing contracts.

Reisman argues that,

The insertion of a gold clause into existing contracts should by no means be regarded as any kind of new and additional government interference with the freedom of contract.

But insofar as existing contracts are only debt obligations, not financed by previous capital accumulation, I have to respectfully disagree. A gold clause, inserted thusly, insulates creditors who have already been the beneficients of government meddling. They have created an obligation ex nihilo, and would expect payment in full regardless of whether inflation continues or the accuracy of their forecasting.

As much as I support the underlying concept of gold clauses (or any commodity clause, for that matter) I have an equal, if not greater disdain for any so-called free-market supporter who advocates insulating creditors (i.e., predominately oligopolistic banks) from risk via ex post facto law. [Note to the strict constitutionalists: ex post facto laws are in direct opposition to the letter of the law as enumerated in the Constitution.]

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics